Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 362
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CR-24-369
Opinion Delivered: August 19, 2026
MAYRA LOPEZ (AKA MYRIA LOPEZ) APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT
SMITH DISTRICT
[NOS. 66FCR-03-126A, 66FCR-05-494A,
V. 66FCR-06-36A]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE R. GUNNER DELAY,
APPELLEE JUDGE
DISMISSED IN PART; REVERSED
AND DISMISSED IN PART
CASEY R. TUCKER, Judge
Mayra Lopez appeals the revocations of her three suspended impositions of sentence
(SIS) and the resulting sentences. This is the third time this case has come before this court.
Initially, Lopez’s attorneys filed a no-merit brief and motion to withdraw. We remanded for
the record to be settled and supplemented and ordered rebriefing. Lopez v. State, 2025 Ark.
App. 368. Upon rebriefing, we held that counsel had not addressed all adverse rulings. We
ordered rebriefing for counsel to address the legality of Lopez’s sentences in two of the
underlying cases, 66FCR-05-494A (“494A”) and 66FCR-06-36A (“36A”).
Lopez has now filed a merit brief, arguing that her sentences in 494A and 36A were
indeed illegal. She urges this court to vacate and dismiss the revocation order as to these
two cases and dismiss the petition to revoke. We agree that the sentences in 494A and 36A must be reversed and dismissed. We dismiss the appeal as to the revocation of 66FCR-03-126A (“126A”)..
I. Background
Lopez had multiple underlying felonies for which she was sentenced to SIS. Her first,
case 126A, was second-degree forgery, a Class C felony to which she pleaded guilty on August
13, 2004. The court sentenced her to sixty months’ SIS and ordered her to pay restitution
of $3,352 plus fines and costs for a total of $4,252 to be paid in $75 monthly installments
beginning October 1, 2004. On December 19, 2007, Lopez pleaded guilty to second-degree
battery—a Class D felony—in case 494A; and possession of methamphetamine and possession
of paraphernalia—Class C felonies—in case 36A. The court once more sentenced Lopez to
sixty months’ SIS on each offense and ordered her to pay restitution “in full” and $1,000 in
fines and costs with the payments to begin March 1, 2008. Lopez’s suspended sentences
were conditioned on good behavior and payment of her restitution, fines, and costs. The
court ordered these sentences to run concurrently.
The State filed a petition to revoke Lopez’s multiple suspended sentences on July 12,
2019. Although the temporal terms of Lopez’s various suspended sentences had long since
expired, the court ostensibly retained jurisdiction over her due to her failure to make the
required restitution payments. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-311 (Repl. 2016). The alleged
basis for the petition to revoke was Lopez’s failure to pay her restitution, fees, fines, and
costs. According to the petition, the unpaid balance of the restitution on the first offense,
the forgery, was $2,467, with $350 in outstanding accumulated fees. The State alleged that
2
on the battery and possession-of-methamphetamine-and-paraphernalia offenses, the
outstanding balance on the restitution was $940, and the total outstanding on fines, fees,
and costs was $1,000.
Lopez stipulated to the petition to revoke and that she had willfully failed to make
her required payments without just cause. The court gave Lopez sixty additional days to
demonstrate her willingness and ability to pay, but Lopez failed to make any payments.
Ultimately the circuit court revoked Lopez’s SIS and sentenced her to sixty months’
incarceration plus sixty months’ SIS on each of her Class C felony convictions. On the Class
D felony, the court sentenced her to twelve months’ SIS. All sentences were to run
concurrently. The sentencing order was entered on May 21, 2024.1 Appellant filed a timely
notice of appeal.
II. Revocation of SIS in Case 126A
On August 13, 2004, in case 126A, Lopez pleaded guilty to Class C felony seconddegree forgery. On August 19, 2004, the court sentenced her to sixty months’ SIS and
ordered her to pay restitution in the amount of $3,352. This order of restitution was
compliant with Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-4-205(b)(1) (Repl. 2024), which provides
that the court “shall make a determination of actual economic loss caused to a victim by the
offense.” When the State filed its petition to revoke Lopez’s SIS on this case on July 17,
1
The sentencing order lists one of the convictions as delivery of methamphetamine, which is incorrect. Lopez pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine and possession of paraphernalia.
3
2019, the court maintained jurisdiction to act pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section
16-93-311, which provides that if a defendant has not made all of his or her restitution
payments when the probation period ends, the court may continue to assert its jurisdiction
over the defendant and either extend the probation period or revoke the SIS.
At the hearing on the petition to revoke, Lopez stipulated to the petition to revoke
and that she had willfully failed to pay without just cause. The court granted her sixty days
to make payments on her outstanding balance prior to sentencing. Lopez did not make any
payments during the sixty-day period. At the conclusion of the hearing following the sixtyday extension, the court revoked Lopez’s SIS and sentenced her to sixty months in the
Arkansas Division of Correction.
Barring exceptions that do not apply here, appeals cannot be taken from guilty pleas.
Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. (1)(a). This rule is equally applicable to pleas entered to revocation
petitions. Joiner v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 6. Lopez’s stipulation to the petition that she failed
to make the required payments and that she did so willfully and without just cause operated
as a guilty plea. Contra Schreibvogel v. State, 2022 Ark. App. 307 (holding that appellant’s
stipulation to the petition without admitting her violations were without just cause did not
constitute a guilty plea). Since the court retained jurisdiction to act beyond the expiration
of the SIS and Lopez pleaded guilty to the petition to revoke, we dismiss the appeal as to the
court’s revocation of Lopez’s SIS in case 126A.
III. Revocation of SIS in Cases 494A and 36A
4
Cases 494A and 36A come to us in a different posture. In these cases, the circuit
court ordered restitution “in full.” The order did not reflect that the court ever made a
determination of actual economic loss to the victim as required by Arkansas Code Annotated
section 5-4-205(b)(1) or that it determined the amount to be paid pursuant to section 5-4-303(f)(1) (Repl. 2024).
Sentencing is a matter of statute in Arkansas, and no convicted defendant can be
sentenced other than in accordance with the applicable statutory authority. State v. Colvin,
2013 Ark. 203, 427 S.W.3d 635. When a court places a defendant on SIS, it may require
the defendant to make restitution to a party aggrieved by the offense in an amount that the
defendant can afford for the actual loss or damage caused. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-303(c)(6);
Arter v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 327, 414 S.W.3d 391. Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated
sections 5-4-205 and -303, the circuit court is required to make a determination of the
amount of restitution the defendant is required to pay. Tumlison v. State, 93 Ark. App. 91,
216 S.W.3d 620 (2005). Failure to pay restitution ordered in accordance with statutory
requirements can serve to extend the court’s jurisdiction over the defendant. Ark. Code
Ann. § 16-93-311. Conversely, failure to pay restitution when the order does not comply
with statutory requirements cannot serve to extend the circuit court’s jurisdiction over the
defendant. Owens v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 532, 337 S.W.3d 527.
In the present case, the circuit court failed to determine an actual amount of
economic loss to the victim in either 494A or 36A. Since the order did not contain a sum
certain that Lopez owed in restitution, it did not meet statutory requirements. See Ark. Code
5
Ann. § 5-4-205(b)(1) and 5-4-303(f)(1). Thus Lopez’s failure to pay “restitution in full” could
not serve to extend the circuit court’s jurisdiction over the defendant. Since a failure to pay
restitution did not extend the court’s jurisdiction, it lacked jurisdiction to revoke Lopez’s
SIS in both 494A and 36A. Because the court lacked jurisdiction when it revoked Lopez’s
SIS in these two cases, we reverse and dismiss the revocation as to them.
We dismiss the appeal of the revocation of Lopez’s SIS in case 126A. The revocation
of Lopez’s SIS in cases 494A and 36A is reversed and dismissed.
Dismissed in part; reversed and dismissed in part.
GLADWIN and BARRETT, JJ., agree.
Matt Kezhaya and Sonia Kezhaya, for appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: David L. Eanes, Jr., Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
6